Another Round in the Debate Over Who Is Truly Homeless

August 25, 2014

The National Alliance to End Homelessness has again raised objections to the proposed Homeless Children and Youth Act — the formal title of a pair of bills now pending in Congress.

As I earlier wrote, they would expand the definition of “homeless” that controls uses communities may make of their federal homeless assistance grants.

They would, among other things, extend eligibility to homeless children and youth if they’re living doubled up with friends or relatives or in a cheap motel, just as they’re already eligible for services from public schools that receive funds under another part of the same law.

Families and children could become eligible in other ways as well, as could youth who are out in the world by themselves, without a “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.”

NAEH argues that federal funds for homeless people can’t even meet the needs of those already eligible. “Tens of thousands of families and unaccompanied youth go unsheltered every night,” it says, “because there is not enough money to serve them all.”

No one, I think, would say otherwise. Funding for homeless assistance grants has remained virtually flat since Fiscal Year 2010. And they will get either no increase or a very small one when Congress gets around to agreeing on funding for the upcoming fiscal year.

NAEH also notes egregious under-funding for programs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administers for unaccompanied youth who’ve run away from home or are homeless for other reasons.

These programs, plus HUD’s serve barely 14% of these youth now, according to the Alliance’s estimates.

But NAEH goes further. “[M]ost people in doubled up households are not homeless,” it says. And the HEARTH Act, which governs HUD’s homeless assistance program, already covers those who are.

Some of them are people who’ll have no place to stay at the end of two weeks. Others are those who’ve fled — or urgently need to flee — the place they’ve been living because of domestic violence or some other dangerous situation, if they don’t have the resources or networks to move into other housing.

For the rest, NAEH says, the answer is HUD-funded rental assistance. But, it continues, there’s not enough money for that either. Indeed.

Only about one in four very low-income households receives rental assistance, according to HUD’s latest (somewhat outdated) assessment. And the prospects for the remainder are dismal.

In fact, we may be looking at a loss of even more than the 72,000 or so housing vouchers local agencies retired to deal with the across-the-board cuts in 2013, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports.

Like as not, the agencies will also have to keep more public housing units vacant because they won’t have the funds to make essential repairs.

So NAEH is right in saying that we need a significant increase in funding for affordable housing.

What divides the Alliance from the large coalition that supports the bills is its view that we need to preserve the current restrictive definition of “homeless” so that “the very limited resources” available remain “dedicated to children, youth, and families who are without any housing at all.”

It essentially pits their needs against those of families and youth who are living doubled up. The proposed legislation, it says, “asks people living on the street and in shelter to compete with them.”

Not really. The bills would merely allow communities to include services for the newly-eligible families and unaccompanied youth in the plans they must submit to receive homeless assistance grants — and prohibit HUD from denying them grants merely because it has other priorities.

The larger issue, I suppose, is whether we should draw a bright, white line between families who are living with Aunt Suzy one month and a charitable friend the next and those who’ve exhausted such options.

Should we put families living in motels through two extra weeks of acute anxiety and stress before we offer them HUD-funded rapid re-housing, knowing they won’t have enough money to stay where they are?

And do we really want young people who’ve left their families, been kicked out or aged out of foster care to bounce from one couch to another when we know this puts them at risk of abuse, problems (or worse problems) in school and more?

NAEH apparently feels we must because the Homeless Children and Youth Act doesn’t increase funding.

The National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth vehemently disagrees. It’s “nonsensical,” the Association says, to define a problem by the funding currently available to address it.

That just gives policymakers “an unrealistic view of the scope of the problem.” Congress “needs to know who and how many people are without housing in order to define effective solutions,” NAEHCY contends.

This seems to me as incontrovertible as what NAEH says about insufficient federal funding for both homeless and affordable housing programs. Yet Congress already knows more than enough to know it’s short-changing them.

Amending the HEARTH Act to include doubled-up families, motel-dwellers who can’t afford their rooms, couch-surfers and others precariously and perhaps unsafely housed would give communities more flexibility to develop plans based on their own assessments of local needs.

But until we have a Congress that’s prepared to spend more on our safety net, every dollar spent on the newly-eligible will be a dollar less for other homeless people — at least so far as federal dollars are concerned.

That much, I think, NAEH is right about. Whether dollars spent to keep doubled-up families and the rest from joining the already-eligible on the streets or in shelters is another matter.


New Hope for Left Out Homeless Children and Youth

August 4, 2014

How many children and youth are homeless in our country? We still don’t know. What we do know is that many of them don’t qualify for programs and services funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Bipartisan bills introduced in both the House and Senate aim to close this gap in the safety net. Whether they will fare better than earlier efforts to expand the definition of “homeless” that HUD must use remains to be seen.

What’s the Problem?

The U.S. Department of Education reports that well over 1.1 million homeless children and youth attended public schools during the 2011-12 school year.

But this is an under-count — in part because not all school districts reported data. Even those that did probably didn’t know how many homeless students they had because, for obvious reasons, homeless kids don’t always ask for help. Nor are they always easy for school personnel to identify.

And, of course, the reported number doesn’t include infants and toddlers — or all somewhat older preschoolers either, the National Associations for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth reports. Homeless youth who’ve dropped out of school or graduated aren’t in the tally either.

Only some fraction of homeless children and youth — counted and otherwise — can get into a shelter funded in whole or in part by HUD because they and their parents have some place else to stay and aren’t demonstrably at immediate risk of being out on the streets.

They’re surely at risk of having to find another accommodating friend or relative — in some reported cases, because the place they’re staying is unhealthful or unsafe. But even in the best of cases, they’ll be moving from one place to another. And we know that instability is bad for kids.

The families are also ineligible for the limited-term housing assistance that HUD’s grantees provide — and for the services that aim to improve their finances so they can afford market-rate rents.

The children and youth are, however, homeless under the part of the McKinney-Vento Act that applies to public education — hence the count cited above. They may also be homeless under other federal laws.

What the Bills Would Do

The bills address several major problems advocates have identified. The largest is the restrictive definition that bars so many homeless families from HUD-funded aid — unless and until they’re out on the streets or about to be.

First off, the bills would enable families to qualify if they stand to lose their housing within 30 days, instead of the current two weeks.

Second they would extend the definition of “homeless” to children and youth who are verified as such by administrators of seven federal programs, in addition to HUD’s.

So, for example, children and youth who are living doubled-up with friends or relatives or staying in a cheap motel would become eligible for HUD-funded services, as they already are for those public schools must provide.

A somewhat similar provision extends eligibility to families and unaccompanied youth who are certified by a public housing authority as lacking “a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.”

Communities wouldn’t have to make these newly-eligible homeless families and youth a priority. But they could do more for them than HUD rules now allow. The bills, in fact, prohibit the agency from giving priority to any homeless population in its decisions on grant awards.

HUD currently gives top priority to people who are chronically homeless, i.e., those who have a severe disability and have been spending their nights in a shelter or “a place not meant for human habitation” for at least a year or recurrently.

Obviously not conducive to extending services for families and unaccompanied youth who’ve been couch-surfing.

Lastly, the bills require HUD to make the results of the HMIS (homeless management information system) reports that grantees must submit available online to anyone who’s interested — and to Congress.

We wouldn’t, of course, see personally-identifiable information about clients. But we would have access to better data than the one-night counts provide because HUD would have to report cumulative HMIS figures.

So we’d have a better fix on the extent of the problem. Of course, we’d also need more funding to address it — and to do so without shorting the needs of homeless adults who don’t have children in their care.

First, however, we need more members of Congress signed on to the bills. Those of you who have voting representation in Congress have several opportunities to help, including a quick and easy e-mail. We who live in the District of Columbia can pass the word along.

 


Homeless DC Families Out in the Not-Quite-Cold-Enough

April 21, 2014

I never thought I’d welcome freezing-cold weather, especially in mid-April. But last week I did because I knew the District would have to shelter homeless families who have no safe place to stay.

I assumed that, as in the past, it would continue to shelter them until they could move into actual housing, with or without its assistance. I’ve learned I was wrong.

Since some time in January, the Department of Human Services has kicked newly-sheltered families back out onto the streets as soon as the forecasted temperature, including wind chill was above 32 degrees.

I wrote some time ago that DHS had reverted to the District’s minimum legal obligation under the Homeless Services Reform Act.

I was wrong about that too because I was referring to its decision to give homeless families access to shelter only in freezing-cold weather, rather than whenever they’d otherwise be at risk of immediate harm.

Now DHS truly has reverted to what the narrowest reading of the law requires — protection from exposure to “severe weather conditions” and, for families, a private room, if an apartment-style unit isn’t available.

The District is now contesting the privacy requirement, claiming that a partly partitioned-off space in a recreation center is a private room. The judge thus far is having none of it. So DHS has been putting newly-homeless families into motel rooms — something the city’s attorneys said it couldn’t possibly do.

But, as I said, they’re sheltered only very temporarily. As soon as the freezing-cold spate is over, they’re out and on their own.

And if hypothermic conditions are forecasted again, they have to return to the Virginia Williams intake center and apply for shelter all over again, as if they were in need for the first time.

They might have another opportunity, as Aaron Wiener at Washington City Paper notes. But pretty soon we won’t have any more freezing-cold nights. The District apparently feels no responsibility for the families then.

What will they do? If they’re lucky, probably double up with one family and then another — or quadruple up for that matter.

If not so lucky, perhaps return to an abuser — a sadly common recourse, we’re told. Or they may spend nights in an emergency room or a bus station, as homeless D.C. families already have.

Or in a laundromat. “You sit in a chair and fake like you are washing clothes,” explained a grandmother who did — and may again if the only alternatives are returning her grandson to his unstable mother or giving him up to the child welfare agency.

An attorney who worked on the HSRA told me that everyone involved assumed that families would have continuous access to shelter, since that was already the operative policy. And it remained so until three years ago.

The DC Council will be considering an amendment to the HSRA that spells out what a private room is — pathetic that such legislation should be needed.

It could use the occasion to also explicitly require year round shelter for homeless families who’ve no other safe place to stay, thus making the law work as intended.

There are actually cost-saving arguments that can be made here, but I’ll refrain because the fundamental issues are human costs.

We need only imagine what it’s like for a parent who’s got to worry about where she and her kids will sleep, how to protect them, what to do with their belongings, what to do now that she’s lost her job because she had to spend so much time dealing with their here-and-there housing, the kids’ school arrangements, etc.

The multifarious damages to children are also easy to imagine — and supported by lots of research.

It tells us, among other things, that the traumas of instability put them at much higher risk of problems in school — something Mayor Gray seeks to compensate for with targeted boosts in public education funding, but not to prevent by minimizing the instability to begin with.

I started the internal rant that’s externalized here the day after the last hypothermia alert was called. It was Emancipation Day in the District.

Now, I like a parade as much as anyone. Balloons and free concerts too. But I couldn’t help thinking about better uses for $350,000 — and about how Mayor Gray covered an extra $116,000 when Councilmember Orange and his fellow organizers ran through their budget.

And I couldn’t help thinking that the Mayor’s proposed $10.8 billion budget apparently consigns homeless families to more of the same.

 

 


Final DC Winter Plan for Homeless Children Passes, With No Shelter Guarantee

November 14, 2013

The District of Columbia’s Interagency Council on Homelessness met yesterday to again consider the part of the 2013-14 Winter Plan that’s supposed to address the shelter and service needs of homeless young adults and minor-age children.

This time, it approved the draft, as-is and with virtually no discussion.

More newsworthy perhaps is that it rejected, almost unanimously, an amendment that would have committed the District to ensuring that “no homeless youth is in danger of hypothermia this winter season,” even if the resources identified in the plan prove insufficient.

Two other parts of the Winter Plan — those that identify shelter capacities for homeless individual men and women — include a similar commitment.

The real sticking point was the basis for the commitment, stated in the sentence that preceded it: “The right to shelter during a hypothermia alert applies to all District residents who cannot access other housing arrangements, including homeless youth.”

Those who’ve been following this issue will recall that the first iteration of the youth-children part said nothing about what the District would do to provide shelter in freezing-cold weather for children under 18 who aren’t with an adult family member.

The ICH approved the Winter Plan, but contingent on a genuine plan for unaccompanied minor-age children. The second iteration didn’t pass either — and as I said at the time, with good reason.

Like the first, it reflected the Department of Human Services’ novel view that the Homeless Services Reform Act, which establishes a legal right to shelter in “severe weather conditions,” doesn’t protect unaccompanied minor-age children, except in the rare cases when they’re legally emancipated.

DHS still takes that view. An open letter to the community issued late last month grudgingly acknowledges that “some advocates believe that the District’s Right to Shelter legislation extends to unaccompanied children who have run away from home for issues other than abuse and neglect.”

Unsaid, but obvious is that DHS believes otherwise. The meeting confirmed that it speaks for the Gray administration. City Administrator Allen Lew, who chairs the ICH, objected to the amendment because it would establish “an unsustainable right to shelter.”

In other words, DHS and the Child and Family Services Administration, which has a lead role in the unaccompanied minor part of the plan, will try to ensure that homeless children are safe, even if it’s not clear they’ve been abused and/or neglected. But if the plan, as written, falls short, well, so be it.

The plan itself reflects the administration’s contorted reading of the law. A child who refuses to return to a “safe available home” with his/her family isn’t homeless, it says.

What staff are supposed to do with children if a preliminary screening indicates they could return is unclear. But the restrictive definition clearly implies that ensuring they have shelter from the elements is, at best, optional.

In other ways, the final draft is far better than its predecessors. But that doesn’t mean it’s as clear and apparently sufficient as the portions of the Winter Plan for homeless men and women who don’t have children with them.

Like the open letter, the draft acknowledges funds in the District’s current budget that will support a new six-bed facility where unaccompanied minor-age children can stay for up to three days without parental or court approval and up to two weeks with approval.

DHS says it expects stays to average a week — and thus to have beds available for 300 more children than the roughly equivalent number that led to high turnaway rates last winter.

The total number of beds should be enough to meet the need, the plan says. What will happen if no bed is available when a homeless child needs one isn’t stated.

And what will happen before the new facility is up and running isn’t either. At this point, a contract to furbish and operate it is still pending. DHS Director David Berns said he thought it would open in January. Agency officials are “talking about interim scenarios.”

But we’ve already had weather cold enough to trigger hypothermia alerts. In fact, one was in effect while the ICH met. Kinda late to be still talking, one might think.

I’m not suggesting the Gray administration will cavalierly let kids freeze to death. But if it were absolutely determined to bring every one of them out of the cold, why does it insist that it has no obligation to do so?

Even if the law were ambiguous — and I don’t think it is — why niggle about it when the moral obligation is crystal clear?

I understand that the drafting committees felt they had to confront complex issues. Children aren’t grownups. We can’t just give them a shelter bed and let them be — or tell them to go on home, regardless of whether they’ll be safe and properly cared for.

But all the Winter Plan is supposed to do — for them, as well as for everyone else in the District — is, as the title page says, “protect the homeless during the winter season” from exposure to the life-threatening risks of freezing-cold temperatures.

If it were enough to trust agencies to muddle through somehow, the law wouldn’t require the District to have one.


DC Department of Human Services Plans to Leave Homeless Children Out in the Cold

October 24, 2013

The District of Columbia’s Interagency Council on Homelessness recently met to discuss, among other things, a revised section of the 2013-14 Winter Plan — specifically, the part that deals with homeless youth and young adults.

Once again, the ICH sent it back to the drawing board. And a good thing too. Because it isn’t merely lacking in specifics, like the family portion I complained about. It’s a tacit denial of a responsibility that everyone, to my knowledge, assumed the District had.

The Department of Human Services now takes the view that the District doesn’t have to provide emergency shelter for homeless children who aren’t with a parent or other caretaker — and that the Winter Plan, therefore, should do nothing to ensure that they have a safe place to stay in freezing-cold weather.

This novel interpretation of the Homeless Services Reform Act is apparently quite new. And it’s not directly stated in the revised section presented to the ICH.

The portion that deals with “unaccompanied minor children” says that the Child and Family Services Administration, i.e., the District’s child welfare agency, will provide 24/7 safety for those it determines were victims of abuse and/or neglect.

Not, I should note, an assurance of immediate shelter or housing.

For children generally, the draft says, “there is not a separate low barrier shelter system in the District” — in other words, no network of publicly-funded providers to ensure that they can get shelter with meeting requirements that might exclude some of them, e.g., showing an ID.

This is a mere statement of fact, not a reason for a “plan” that’s no plan at all.

As the draft indicates, there are two local nonprofits that provide emergency shelter for youth — only one of them for the very young. But, as the prior draft said, “capacity in these programs is limited and slots are quickly filled.”

You’d think DHS would have done something about such an obviously urgent problem. The shortage of shelter beds for kids is hardly new.

The DC Alliance of Youth Advocates alluded to it in a report issued nearly two years ago. Last February, the ICH Youth Sub-Committee reported that 80 youth had been turned away from emergency shelters the month before.

Preliminary data cited by the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless indicate that at least 150 minor-age children were turned away during a three-month period, including two months of last year’s official winter season.

DHS could have sounded alarm bells. It’s hard to believe that it wouldn’t have gotten the funds to significantly expand emergency shelter capacity for children who’ve been thrown out of their homes or fled.

Instead, the agency secured a legal analysis to justify the “proposed framework for serving unaccompanied minor children” that’s reflected in the Winter Plan.

Which prompted the Legal Clinic’s own legal analysis.

As it says, the framework asserts that DHS has no legal authority to shelter homeless unaccompanied minors who would otherwise be exposed to dangerously-cold temperatures. Nor, “by extension,” do the providers it contracts with.

This is merely an administrative issue — a way of shucking off responsibility to other agencies, most of which serve on the ICH and, therefore, have responsibilities for a Winter Plan that purports “to protect the lives of those who are homeless.”

The more important claim is that the HSRA doesn’t require the District to shelter unaccompanied minors — except in cases where they’re legally emancipated, i.e., have a court order granting them freedom from parental control (and parents freedom from responsibilities for their care).

The reasoning here is pretty contorted. I’ll leave it to the Legal Clinic to explain the details.

For our purposes, it’s sufficient to say that the legal opinion the framework cites relies on the fact that the HSRA doesn’t specifically say that unaccompanied minor children have a right to shelter — or define the term “individual.”

It does, however, clearly say that the District must provide “appropriate space … for any person in the District who is homeless and cannot access other shelter” whenever “the actual or forecasted temperature, including wind chill factor falls below 32 degrees.”

And there is nothing in the law to justify some of the exclusions the DHS framework establishes for any homeless services to minor-age children. For example, the proposition that they’re not homeless if they “have a house to return to but … no place to stay for the night.”

Say, for the sake of argument, that the law were sufficiently ambiguous raise doubts about the District’s legal obligation to provide children with a safe place to stay when they’d otherwise be on the streets in freezing-cold weather — and highly vulnerable to predators who offer to take them in.

Wouldn’t we still want some of our taxpayer dollars going to remedy a long-standing weakness in the District’s publicly-funded network of shelters, housing and other services for homeless people?

But I’m persuaded that the law isn’t ambiguous on the fundamental issue here. So the real alternative is having our taxpayer dollars wasted in defending the District in a lawsuit for violation of a basic right established in the HSRA — a likely possibility, the Legal Clinic’s brief implies.

But, in the meantime, there will be a lot of young people at unnecessary risk of harm.

The DC Council’s Human Services Committee will hold a hearing on the Winter Plan next Tuesday morning. One can only help that it will firmly reject the pseudo-legalistic evasions and tell the Gray administration to do what it should have done some time ago.

And do it PDQ because, as you may have noticed, it’s getting cold outside.

NOTE: The Legal Clinic tells me that the timeframe for the turn-away estimate is five months, not three, as the source I link to indicates.


Battle Reopens Over Definition of Homelessness

April 2, 2012

It’s sad when nonprofits that advocate for the same cause openly fight with one another.

That’s what we’re seeing now as organizations dedicated to improving services for homeless people take opposite sides on a bill pending in the House of Representatives.

The bill at issue — the Homeless Children and Youth Act (H.R. 32) — would expand the definition of “homeless” in the HEARTH Act, i.e., the latest version of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.

Why Worry About a Word?

The HEARTH Act definition of “homeless” sets the parameters for local programs supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s homeless assistance grants.

It determines both the populations the grant funds may serve and those that get counted and reported to HUD. The figures reported to HUD are reported to Congress — and ultimately to us, through press reports, blog posts and the like.

The definition thus not only reflects, but helps shape public policy.

First Round of the Definition Debate

H.R. 32 reopens an issue that split organizations at the time Congressional committees were developing the HEARTH Act.

The McKinney Vento Act defined homeless people as those who are in shelters, transitional housing or “places not meant for human habitation.”

People living in cheap motels or some friend’s spare bedroom weren’t officially homeless — and thus not eligible for HUD-funded services.

Their children, however, were officially homeless under Title VII of the McKinney-Vento Act — the part that covers requirements and funding for the education of homeless children and youth.

A number of national organizations urged Congress to broaden the general definition to include families whose children were already homeless under Title VII.

That would have extended eligibility for shelter and more stable housing to families living with friends or relatives or in motels, hotels, trailer parks or camping grounds because they couldn’t afford “alternative adequate accommodations.”

Other organizations, including the National Alliance to End Homelessness, resisted, foreseeing a large expansion in the eligibility pool with no commensurate increases in funding or fundable initiatives.

Congress ultimately tried to split the difference.

HEARTH Act Compromise

As things stand now, the HEARTH Act definition includes individuals and families if they’re about to be evicted and have no immediate prospects for an alternative residence.

Those living doubled up are part of this group, as are those living in motels — but, as with evictions, but only if they’ll have no place to stay in two weeks.

The new definition also recognizes families and unaccompanied youth who are already homeless under other federal laws, but only if they’ve been without permanent housing for a long time, moved frequently and can be expected to remain unstably housed for one or more of specified reasons, e.g., a chronic disability, a history of domestic violence or childhood abuse, “multiple barriers to employment.”

In short, an expansion, but hedged with conditions.

Round Two

No one, I suppose, found the compromise altogether satisfying. Advocates for the Title VII-type definition surely didn’t.

So they found a friendly House member — Congresswoman Judy Biggert (R-IL) — to introduce a bill that would make the HEARTH Act definition the way they always wanted it.

A leading proponent — the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth — says the legislation is urgently needed because “many homeless children and youth are suffering out of public sight.”

We don’t see the hardships they’re enduring because they’re living in motels or doubled up. But they’re actually more in danger of abuse, untreated health problems, hunger and “educational deficits” than those in shelters, NAEHCY says.

HUD’s regulations make it “virtually impossible” for these at-risk children and youth to qualify for the assistance the agency funds. Even those who might meet the HEARTH Act definition could be barred by the formidable documentation and verification requirements.

NAEHCY argues that local service providers are best qualified to know which homeless families and children are most in need of housing and services.

And there’d be no red tape because children and youth already verified as homeless by any one of four federally-funded programs, e.g., a local school district, a Head Start program, would be automatically eligible. Their families as well.

To top it off, the Biggert bill wouldn’t cost anything. That’s again where the conflict lies.

NAEH warns that the expanded definition would divert already inadequate resources from “children who literally have no roof over their heads.”

There’s no indication, it says, that additional funds will be provided to accommodate the increase in the number of families eligible for the assistance HUD funds through its Continuum of Care grants.

I think it’s hard to argue otherwise. If the expanded definition came with a bigger piece of federal budget pie, we wouldn’t have organizations fighting over who should get the crumbs.

Yet, as NAEHCY says, “policy should be based on reality, not fantasy.” Under the current definition, at least 762,000 or so children and youth that most of us would consider homeless aren’t counted as such. Not even an estimate apparently for the number of uncounted homeless families.

Getting a fix on the scope of the problem won’t solve it. But Congress surely won’t act if the numbers it gets minimize the crisis.


No Shelter For Homeless DC Families At Risk Of Harm

March 16, 2011

Two recent postings on the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless blog have me brooding about our priorities.

Kate Gannon, a legal intern at the Clinic, tells us about counseling a mother with three young children who’s understandably incredulous and upset when told that the Virginia Williams Family Resource Center can’t arrange any place for them to stay because the temperature is a few degrees above freezing.

Staff attorney Marta Berensin reports an outrageous threat to a homeless mother who’d gone back to the Center once again in hopes of help: Get on a bus to a shelter outside the District or lose your children to the foster care system.

The episode, she says, may be partly attributable to the recently-enacted residency verification requirements.

But the “myriad barriers” to shelter that families are experiencing are rooted in a shortage of family shelter units. Notwithstanding warnings, the Department of Human Services again failed to plan for enough capacity this winter.

I’ve been told that the District used to provide some form of shelter for all so-called Priority #1 families, i.e., those who have absolutely no place to stay.

Now it seems to have reverted to its minimal legal obligation. Homeless families are left to fend for themselves — on the streets, in abandoned buildings, who knows where? — unless the effective temperature is 32 degrees or colder because that’s all the Homeless Services Reform Act requires.

DHS apparently feels it has no choice. DC General — the only emergency shelter for families — has been full or nearly so for many months.

It announced last fall that it wouldn’t open more units there because that would run counter to its long-term strategy. But it apparently can’t open alternative housing units fast enough to keep up with rising need.

Nor do they provide a stable housing situation for the majority of homeless families. I understand that it’s now offering only short-term, phased-out rental assistance — obviously suitable only for families that are temporarily short on cash.

The hypothermia season officially ends on March 31. For at least the past two years, DHS  has kept what are technically winter-only units at DC General open longer to accommodate the ongoing stream of Priority #1 families.

Looks as if this year will be different. An e-mailed action alert from the Legal Clinic says that DHS plans to stop sheltering any more homeless families until next November, when the next hypothermia season begins.

It’s as if freezing to death is the only harm we need concern ourselves about.

Gannon writes that virtually every mother she interviewed was a victim of domestic violence. We know — or ought to know — that domestic violence victims often return to their abusers when they feel they’ve got nowhere else to go.

Homeless mothers sometimes give their children up or parcel them out among relatives if they can. How can young children understand this as anything except desertion?

Homeless children generally suffer psychological damage even when their parents manage to find safe places where they can all stay together.

They develop physical as well as mental health problems. Their schoolwork suffers. They feel isolated from their peers — as indeed they are, since they’ve few opportunities to socialize.

How much worse when they’re spending the night in a bus station or under a bridge.

I understand that the District had a large budget gap to close — and that it’s facing another. But I refuse to believe that our policymakers have no choice but to neglect the urgent needs of homeless families in our midst.

The Legal Clinic asks us to e-mail or call Mayor Gray and urge him to propose an increase in local funding for homeless services for Fiscal Year 2012.

As the DC Fiscal Policy Institute explains, $25 million will be needed just to keep funding level because the District won’t have certain federal funds to shore up the program.

Seems to me that’s not enough, given what’s been going on this winter. And what will happen to Priority #1 families before the new budget kicks in?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 184 other followers